Comments on: The "one in a million" fallacy http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/ Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:50:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: The "it seems designed for us, really!" error | Way of the Mind http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33937 The "it seems designed for us, really!" error | Way of the Mind Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:01:49 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33937 [...] Register « The "one in a million" fallacy [...] [...] Register « The "one in a million" fallacy [...]

]]> By: No Way http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33888 No Way Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:04:24 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33888 Pedro, I look forward to seeing you deal with the theological issues in your next post. That is because Ross is correct. The combination that results in life is no more or less likely to happen randomly than any other single instance of another. However, it is MUCH LESS likely to occur than ANY of the others. In a criminal court of law this kind of probability would certainly be considered as PROOF of innocence or guilt. But, we are talking more along the lines of a civil court. In civil court the burden is a preponderance of the evidence. While it is certainly not proof, one can see how it could be considered evidence. Even with that we have only talked about the existence of life. We haven't even touched on other characteristics such as apparent order, etc. Also, I thought all the people that support the "science" of evolution would be interested in this link: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67&kws=250,000 If you can provide emperical evidence for evolution you can win $250,000. Perhaps someone could at least provide a preponderance of the evidence but I have never even seen that. BTW, the posting that spawned this post sounded more like that of an agnostic than an atheist. Pedro, I look forward to seeing you deal with the theological issues in your next post. That is because Ross is correct. The combination that results in life is no more or less likely to happen randomly than any other single instance of another. However, it is MUCH LESS likely to occur than ANY of the others.

In a criminal court of law this kind of probability would certainly be considered as PROOF of innocence or guilt. But, we are talking more along the lines of a civil court. In civil court the burden is a preponderance of the evidence. While it is certainly not proof, one can see how it could be considered evidence.

Even with that we have only talked about the existence of life. We haven’t even touched on other characteristics such as apparent order, etc.

Also, I thought all the people that support the “science” of evolution would be interested in this link:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67&kws=250,000
If you can provide emperical evidence for evolution you can win $250,000. Perhaps someone could at least provide a preponderance of the evidence but I have never even seen that.

BTW, the posting that spawned this post sounded more like that of an agnostic than an atheist.

]]> By: nullifidian » Pedro deals with the “one in a million” fallacy http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33853 nullifidian » Pedro deals with the “one in a million” fallacy Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:47:53 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33853 [...] fallacy often used by creationists to argue that “life could never happen by chance”. Go and read it, then come back, and I’ll give you my take on [...] [...] fallacy often used by creationists to argue that “life could never happen by chance”. Go and read it, then come back, and I’ll give you my take on [...]

]]> By: Ross http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33843 Ross Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:47:59 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33843 Okay, look forward to seeing it! Also, glad to see some posts here again, I was afraid WotM was dead (and it is pretty much the only blog I check on a daily basis). Okay, look forward to seeing it!

Also, glad to see some posts here again, I was afraid WotM was dead (and it is pretty much the only blog I check on a daily basis).

]]> By: Pedro Timóteo http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33840 Pedro Timóteo Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:03:03 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33840 <blockquote>There is a problem here Pedro. In No Way’s post, he is saying you need 66666666666666666666 to have life, and ALL other choices would not sustain life. So any other individual combination is just as unlikely as twenty 6’s, but since any result other than twenty 6’s (11111111111111111111, 11111111111111111112,…,66666666666666666665) result in no life, then it would seem that it is incredibly unlikely for it to come about by chance.</blockquote> Yes, that's what I mentioned in the last paragraph. :) I didn't want to mention it here because I wanted this post to be free of theological questions. I'll address that on the <i>next</i> post.

There is a problem here Pedro. In No Way’s post, he is saying you need 66666666666666666666 to have life, and ALL other choices would not sustain life. So any other individual combination is just as unlikely as twenty 6’s, but since any result other than twenty 6’s (11111111111111111111, 11111111111111111112,…,66666666666666666665) result in no life, then it would seem that it is incredibly unlikely for it to come about by chance.

Yes, that’s what I mentioned in the last paragraph. :) I didn’t want to mention it here because I wanted this post to be free of theological questions. I’ll address that on the next post.

]]> By: Ross http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33839 Ross Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:00:55 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33839 Just to draw a parallel. What if I, without fail, won every lottery in existence for a year? Sure, you could say "Well, the winning combination is just as likely to pick as any one of the losing combinations" but the fact is that there are A LOT of losing combinations and only one winning one. This does not dispute the fact that I won the lottery (I obviously won, unlikely or not) but it would raise suspicion as to whether I did so based on pure chance or not. Just to draw a parallel. What if I, without fail, won every lottery in existence for a year? Sure, you could say “Well, the winning combination is just as likely to pick as any one of the losing combinations” but the fact is that there are A LOT of losing combinations and only one winning one. This does not dispute the fact that I won the lottery (I obviously won, unlikely or not) but it would raise suspicion as to whether I did so based on pure chance or not.

]]> By: Ross http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33838 Ross Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:55:46 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/12/03/the-one-in-a-million-fallacy/#comment-33838 There is a problem here Pedro. In No Way's post, he is saying you need 66666666666666666666 to have life, and ALL other choices would not sustain life. So any other individual combination is just as unlikely as twenty 6's, but since any result other than twenty 6's (11111111111111111111, 11111111111111111112,...,66666666666666666665) result in no life, then it would seem that it is incredibly unlikely for it to come about by chance. There is a problem here Pedro. In No Way’s post, he is saying you need 66666666666666666666 to have life, and ALL other choices would not sustain life. So any other individual combination is just as unlikely as twenty 6’s, but since any result other than twenty 6’s (11111111111111111111, 11111111111111111112,…,66666666666666666665) result in no life, then it would seem that it is incredibly unlikely for it to come about by chance.

]]>